The poll has Kirk edging ahead of Democratic nominee Tammy Duckworth 41.9 percent to 40.4 percent, within the poll's plus or minus 3.5 percentage point margin of error, but better than the narrow 42.5 percent to 42 percent lead Duckworth held when Basswood last surveyed in April.

Kirk this summer ran TV ads before Duckworth, which could account for a margin shift that small. He's also loudly backed off an earlier endorsement of Trump.

Normally I'd say an incumbent with only 41.9 percent backing is in some trouble. But this is a strange year, and it's hard to say without knowing more about the roughly one in five voters who are undecided.

In comparison to the Senate contest, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has a wide lead in her home state over the GOP's Trump.

Specifically, 46.4 percent of likely voters surveyed by phone said they favor Clinton, 32.5 percent are for Trump, 5.2 percent for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 2.6 percent for the Green Party's Jill Stein. Just over 13 percent were undecided.

Back on the Senate race, Basswood says Kirk is doing 22 points better than Trump among moderates, and 24 points better among women. Basswood's research memo didn't say what the relative margin is among Republicans and men, but it obviously is much smaller.

Basswood also found that Illinois voters oppose the Iran nuclear deal 51 percent to 28 percent, favor keeping the Guantanamo prison open 57 percent to 34 percent, and oppose admitting Syrian refugees to the U.S. 60 percent to 32 percent. There have been some sharp differences between Duckworth and Kirk on those issues, particularly the latter.

Specifically, 46.4 percent of likely voters surveyed by phone said they favor Clinton, 32.5 percent are for Trump, 5.2 percent for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 2.6 percent for the Green Party's Jill Stein. Just over 13 percent were undecided.

Don't know if it belongs in this thread and there is obviously no link, but Chuck Todd on MSNBC mentioned private internal polling from one of the party congressional committees that had "Clinton up 13 points" in one of the "swing districts in Iowa"

Iowa only has 4 congressional districts and 2 of them are swing districts (the 1st is Democratic and the 4th is Republican)

Don't know if it belongs in this thread and there is obviously no link, but Chuck Todd on MSNBC mentioned private internal polling from one of the party congressional committees that had "Clinton up 13 points" in one of the "swing districts in Iowa"

Don't know if it belongs in this thread and there is obviously no link, but Chuck Todd on MSNBC mentioned private internal polling from one of the party congressional committees that had "Clinton up 13 points" in one of the "swing districts in Iowa"

Don't know if it belongs in this thread and there is obviously no link, but Chuck Todd on MSNBC mentioned private internal polling from one of the party congressional committees that had "Clinton up 13 points" in one of the "swing districts in Iowa"

lol, that's insane. IA-3 or IA-1?

This is Chuck Todd. This could mean 2 or 4.

Ah... lol. If Hillary would be up 13 in IA-4, she would be landsliding beyond belief.

Don't know if it belongs in this thread and there is obviously no link, but Chuck Todd on MSNBC mentioned private internal polling from one of the party congressional committees that had "Clinton up 13 points" in one of the "swing districts in Iowa"

Iowa only has 4 congressional districts and 2 of them are swing districts (the 1st is Democratic and the 4th is Republican)

Gonna piggyback off this

Mr. Todd said this morning on MSNBC that the polls next week look to be getting worse for Trump. He also mentioned an upcoming poll showing Clinton leading in a solid R state, recalling the weird polls from Utah

Don't know if it belongs in this thread and there is obviously no link, but Chuck Todd on MSNBC mentioned private internal polling from one of the party congressional committees that had "Clinton up 13 points" in one of the "swing districts in Iowa"

Iowa only has 4 congressional districts and 2 of them are swing districts (the 1st is Democratic and the 4th is Republican)

Gonna piggyback off this

Mr. Todd said this morning on MSNBC that the polls next week look to be getting worse for Trump. He also mentioned an upcoming poll showing Clinton leading in a solid R state, recalling the weird polls from Utah

Don't know if it belongs in this thread and there is obviously no link, but Chuck Todd on MSNBC mentioned private internal polling from one of the party congressional committees that had "Clinton up 13 points" in one of the "swing districts in Iowa"

Iowa only has 4 congressional districts and 2 of them are swing districts (the 1st is Democratic and the 4th is Republican)

It's IA-2 that is typically democratic and IA-4 that's reliably republican. IA-1 is lean D so maybe he's talking about this district. A republican rep got elected in 2014 that had been held by a democrat, but it's likely to flip back this year. IA-3 is swing, maybe a tiny tilt R.

Either way if Clinton is truly up 13, whether it's IA-1 or 3, then she has the state.

Don't know if it belongs in this thread and there is obviously no link, but Chuck Todd on MSNBC mentioned private internal polling from one of the party congressional committees that had "Clinton up 13 points" in one of the "swing districts in Iowa"

Iowa only has 4 congressional districts and 2 of them are swing districts (the 1st is Democratic and the 4th is Republican)

Gonna piggyback off this

Mr. Todd said this morning on MSNBC that the polls next week look to be getting worse for Trump. He also mentioned an upcoming poll showing Clinton leading in a solid R state, recalling the weird polls from Utah

Don't know if it belongs in this thread and there is obviously no link, but Chuck Todd on MSNBC mentioned private internal polling from one of the party congressional committees that had "Clinton up 13 points" in one of the "swing districts in Iowa"

Iowa only has 4 congressional districts and 2 of them are swing districts (the 1st is Democratic and the 4th is Republican)

Gonna piggyback off this

Mr. Todd said this morning on MSNBC that the polls next week look to be getting worse for Trump. He also mentioned an upcoming poll showing Clinton leading in a solid R state, recalling the weird polls from Utah

Don't know if it belongs in this thread and there is obviously no link, but Chuck Todd on MSNBC mentioned private internal polling from one of the party congressional committees that had "Clinton up 13 points" in one of the "swing districts in Iowa"

Iowa only has 4 congressional districts and 2 of them are swing districts (the 1st is Democratic and the 4th is Republican)

Gonna piggyback off this

Mr. Todd said this morning on MSNBC that the polls next week look to be getting worse for Trump. He also mentioned an upcoming poll showing Clinton leading in a solid R state, recalling the weird polls from Utah

Any link?

Was he referring to that Georgia poll?

That seems most likely. Not sure what other polls he would have had that far ahead of time by this point.

Don't know if it belongs in this thread and there is obviously no link, but Chuck Todd on MSNBC mentioned private internal polling from one of the party congressional committees that had "Clinton up 13 points" in one of the "swing districts in Iowa"

Iowa only has 4 congressional districts and 2 of them are swing districts (the 1st is Democratic and the 4th is Republican)

Gonna piggyback off this

Mr. Todd said this morning on MSNBC that the polls next week look to be getting worse for Trump. He also mentioned an upcoming poll showing Clinton leading in a solid R state, recalling the weird polls from Utah

FL-7 and 26 will probably have greater Democratic trends than other districts in the state. I expect most of northern Florida to move very little in either direction, Miami to completely collapse for Trump and for Trump to somewhat underperform in places like Collier, Sarasota. He'll do fine in Volusia.

FL-7 and 26 will probably have greater Democratic trends than other districts in the state. I expect most of northern Florida to move very little in either direction, Miami to completely collapse for Trump and for Trump to somewhat underperform in places like Collier, Sarasota. He'll do fine in Volusia.

I don't disagree with any of this. Fl 7 is heavy college educated Republicans. I've been telling my Republican friends that the difference between a Rubio win and loss is hillarys margin. If she wins by 7-8 or more, he's probably toast.

Is that the same internal which had Bayh up 26? If not, I'd be curious to see Bayh's numbers.

I believe it is, yes. If Clinton wins Indiana, she can thank the downballot.

Reverse coattails almost never happen

Not sure I buy the reverse coattails theory either in most cases, but there is a chance that voters not liking either presidential nominee might show up to vote for the Senate election, and if so Holmes might have a point that in an extremely close election (like 2008) that if these otherwise non-voters show up they might decide to cast ballots for President at the same time....

538 has more details on this Indiana poll. The pollster is called "Expedition Strategies", was taken over August 1-3, included 600 Likely Voters, and was adjusted to a 1 point lead for Clinton in the 538 polls-only model and a 1 point lead for Trump in the polls-plus model.

538 has more details on this Indiana poll. The pollster is called "Expedition Strategies", was taken over August 1-3, included 600 Likely Voters, and was adjusted to a 1 point lead for Clinton in the 538 polls-only model and a 1 point lead for Trump in the polls-plus model.

It's given no grade at all and is weighted at .47 (cf. Tarrance's late July poll still at .41, and Marist's April poll still weighted at .96), for those interested.

While Trump was faring well in some conservative states like Missouri and Indiana, according to the RGA’s figures, he’s losing two states where Republicans are hoping to elect governors, North Carolina and Vermont.

While Trump was faring well in some conservative states like Missouri and Indiana, according to the RGA’s figures, he’s losing two states where Republicans are hoping to elect governors, North Carolina and Vermont.

Considering how Virginia and Colorado have basically shifted from tossup to likely dem overnight, its hard to find a state more similar to those two than NC. NC is the new VA.

Can't really say that for anyone other than Trump though. State would be close but I have to believe any other Republican would win it against Clinton especially.

True, but the real question will be if Trump is a fluke or a harbinger of permanent realignment. It's not hard for me to imagine him permanently shifting VA, CO, and NC slightly bluer from now on. Especially considering that Romney and McCain were about as acceptable to your average college educated white as any GOP candidate I see coming down the road any time soon, and these states were at least competitive under those two candidates. A 5% college educated white shift basically puts VA away, makes CO lean dem (at least as much as NH, PA) and makes NC the new FL.

Marquette had Clinton up by 5% (4 way vote) in the Milwaukee media market, outside of the city of Milwaukee. This includes the WOW counties, but also includes the Milwaukee County suburbs, Racine, Kenosha, Sheboygan, Fond du Lac, Jefferson, and Walworth counties.

Marquette had Clinton up by 5% (4 way vote) in the Milwaukee media market, outside of the city of Milwaukee. This includes the WOW counties, but also includes the Milwaukee County suburbs, Racine, Kenosha, Sheboygan, Fond du Lac, Jefferson, and Walworth counties.

Oh, okay, that's at least within the realm of comprehension. Although even that broader area was won by McCain 53-46 in 2008, so Trump is still badly under-performing there.

Marquette had Clinton up by 5% (4 way vote) in the Milwaukee media market, outside of the city of Milwaukee. This includes the WOW counties, but also includes the Milwaukee County suburbs, Racine, Kenosha, Sheboygan, Fond du Lac, Jefferson, and Walworth counties.

Oh, okay, that's at least within the realm of comprehension. Although even that broader area was won by McCain 53-46 in 2008, so Trump is still badly under-performing there.

Marquette had Clinton up by 5% (4 way vote) in the Milwaukee media market, outside of the city of Milwaukee. This includes the WOW counties, but also includes the Milwaukee County suburbs, Racine, Kenosha, Sheboygan, Fond du Lac, Jefferson, and Walworth counties.

Oh, okay, that's at least within the realm of comprehension. Although even that broader area was won by McCain 53-46 in 2008, so Trump is still badly under-performing there.

Marquette had Clinton up by 5% (4 way vote) in the Milwaukee media market, outside of the city of Milwaukee. This includes the WOW counties, but also includes the Milwaukee County suburbs, Racine, Kenosha, Sheboygan, Fond du Lac, Jefferson, and Walworth counties.

Oh, okay, that's at least within the realm of comprehension. Although even that broader area was won by McCain 53-46 in 2008, so Trump is still badly under-performing there.

Not totally unreasonable considering the state was only (54-49 McCain in '08), so if one looks at the national polling averages, combined with some of the neighboring state polls, it makes sense that this state could be close within MOE, even adjusting for the partisan internal organization that conducted the poll.

Additionally is a highly educated state, where even in the cradle of the Confederacy, we could expect to see a significant defection among "Angry Country Southern Club Ladies", and educated White voters in general to have Yuuuge issues with the current Republican nominee.

Also, there are other reports regarding collapse of Trump support within the suburbs/exurbs of Charlotte, that would include Chester, Chesterfield, Lancaster, and York Counties, most of which are heavily Republican, at a time where the Trump campaign has not yet aired a single ad in NC.

As, I discussed elsewhere with fellow forumites, there is also a significant collapse in Coastal SC counties, from "country club" Republicans from Horry to Beaufort, and even rock solid Republican suburb of Columbia (Lexington County).

It is just an internal poll but..... feel free to discuss, particularly those that live in the state/region and more familiar with some of the demographics.

Scott is the head of the Rebuilding America Now PAC, which—in conjunction with pollsters from On Message, Inc.—conducted a battleground survey in the state of Ohio. The survey of 600 likely voters from August 13 to August 17, with a margin of error of 4 percent, shows Trump tied with Clinton at 45 percent apiece with 10 percent undecided in a two-way race. In the four-way race with Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein included, Trump and Clinton are still tied at 42 percent, while Johnson gets 8 percent and Stein just 2 percent—with 6 percent undecided.

according to McCain’s pollster, Bill McInturff, “Trump and Clinton are essentially running even in Arizona.”

Why does it seem like GOP internals are more D-friendly that public polls? In NC we heard Trump was down double digits, but recent polls show it's still pretty close.

If I recall in 2014 GOP internals were actually pretty accurate.

Both the D & R internals are showing a bigger lead for Clinton than a lot of the polls; and what we are seeing in the ground games and how the campaigns are responding is that feels like the case. I think perhaps the public polls are starting to show a "herding" effect; with so many daily trackers and the like showing a close race, the other pollsters are showing the same herding problem we've seen in the past.

Those MN-02 numbers look reasonable to me. Hillary likely has an even larger lead statewide, but if third party numbers keep holding up here they are going to prevent a blowout very much above 10%. She'll still win MN easily unless something crazy happens.

This is definitely a state where Johnson is pulling more support from her than Trump, and Stein will probably get above 1% too.

Really strange that Trump seems to consistently be doing much, much worse in private GOP polling than he is in public polls.

To my mind, there are three probable explanations:

1. The media wants a horse race, and are tweaking their methodologies/sampling to aid the narrative2. The GOP wants a sense of panic among organizers (and/or donors), and is tweaking their polling in turn3. Random noise (given how consistent the pattern is, though, this seems pretty unlikely)

Besides CNN and Quinnipiac, who both have crazy swings and heavy editorializing in their poll releases, I think most of the big pollsters strive to be honest and present an accurate depiction of the race. It seems clear the race has tightened.

But Trump is still behind and people in down ballot races have real concerns that Trump is going to blow it for them, even if he is improving a few points.

Really strange that Trump seems to consistently be doing much, much worse in private GOP polling than he is in public polls.

To my mind, there are three probable explanations:

1. The media wants a horse race, and are tweaking their methodologies/sampling to aid the narrative2. The GOP wants a sense of panic among organizers (and/or donors), and is tweaking their polling in turn3. Random noise (given how consistent the pattern is, though, this seems pretty unlikely)

Or 4: The GOP's internals showing Trump as a dumpster fire are correct because they are making unusual moves with money, like using RGA money instead of RNC money which is forced to prop up a failing candidate atop the ticket

Really strange that Trump seems to consistently be doing much, much worse in private GOP polling than he is in public polls.

To my mind, there are three probable explanations:

1. The media wants a horse race, and are tweaking their methodologies/sampling to aid the narrative2. The GOP wants a sense of panic among organizers (and/or donors), and is tweaking their polling in turn3. Random noise (given how consistent the pattern is, though, this seems pretty unlikely)

Or 4: The GOP's internals showing Trump as a dumpster fire are correct because they are making unusual moves with money, like using RGA money instead of RNC money which is forced to prop up a failing candidate atop the ticket

This may be true, but in that case public polls should be showing that as well, unless there's some force which is pulling the two apart.

Really strange that Trump seems to consistently be doing much, much worse in private GOP polling than he is in public polls.

To my mind, there are three probable explanations:

1. The media wants a horse race, and are tweaking their methodologies/sampling to aid the narrative2. The GOP wants a sense of panic among organizers (and/or donors), and is tweaking their polling in turn3. Random noise (given how consistent the pattern is, though, this seems pretty unlikely)

Or GOP just doesn't like Trump. They can't say it loud, because R-voters are pretty much behind Trump. Right now, the race is about Clinton +2-4, and it is tie a Ohio/Florid/Iowa etc. We should by default get some internals, where Trump has a comfortable lead, just because of nature of polls. But the "leaked" polls are always awful for Trump.

Sept. 6-11; 40% of the survey respondents were Democrats, 38% Republicans and 22% independents — a generally representative breakdown of turnout by party in Florida presidential elections.

At the end of the article it says that they purposely over-sampled Hispanics

Puerto Ricans are much more D than Cubans and have disproportionately grown in the last 4 years relative to other Hispanics in the state. So it depends how the intentional over sample was composed (can't see right now, on iPhone). Does it say anything?

Sept. 6-11; 40% of the survey respondents were Democrats, 38% Republicans and 22% independents — a generally representative breakdown of turnout by party in Florida presidential elections.

At the end of the article it says that they purposely over-sampled Hispanics

Oversample generally means they poll more of a subgroup to get a lower margin of error, but their share of the vote is not overstated. For example, a national poll of 400 might only get 50 Hispanics to respond, which is a huge margin of error. So they could additionally focus poll 200 Hispanics, use the R/D split, and then fit it back to the 50/400.

Sept. 6-11; 40% of the survey respondents were Democrats, 38% Republicans and 22% independents — a generally representative breakdown of turnout by party in Florida presidential elections.

At the end of the article it says that they purposely over-sampled Hispanics

Oversample generally means they poll more of a subgroup to get a lower margin of error, but their share of the vote is not overstated. For example, a national poll of 400 might only get 50 Hispanics to respond, which is a huge margin of error. So they could additionally focus poll 200 Hispanics, use the R/D split, and then fit it back to the 50/400.

You are such a hackish poster. And you absolutely work for the HRC campaign.

Sept. 6-11; 40% of the survey respondents were Democrats, 38% Republicans and 22% independents — a generally representative breakdown of turnout by party in Florida presidential elections.

At the end of the article it says that they purposely over-sampled Hispanics

Oversample generally means they poll more of a subgroup to get a lower margin of error, but their share of the vote is not overstated. For example, a national poll of 400 might only get 50 Hispanics to respond, which is a huge margin of error. So they could additionally focus poll 200 Hispanics, use the R/D split, and then fit it back to the 50/400.

You are such a hackish poster. And you absolutely work for the HRC campaign.

That's an absolutely unjustified insult. Oversampling is a recognized technique to reduce the margin of error within the subgroup. It does not change the overall result. Here's a description of the technique from the well-respected pollster Pew Research (emphasis mine):

"Oversampling

For some surveys, it is important to ensure that there are enough members of a certain subgroup in the population so that more reliable estimates can be reported for that group. To do this, we oversample members of the subgroup by selecting more people from this group than would typically be done if everyone in the sample had an equal chance of being selected. Because the margin of sampling error is related to the size of the sample, increasing the sample size for a particular subgroup through the use of oversampling allows for estimates to be made with a smaller margin of error. A survey that includes an oversample weights the results so that members in the oversampled group are weighted to their actual proportion in the population; this allows for the overall survey results to represent both the national population and the oversampled subgroup."

This is from http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/sampling/.

Perhaps you should consider not insulting people based on your false assumptions.

If you can't take a contrarian opinion you have got a problem, this is not a fanclub. There is a tendency to trash every poll where Hillary loses n support every poll where she wins which is no fair. Let's not be delusional here.

I think Hillary's problem in the LV-RV gap. She maybe leading by 1-2% in RV but she is probably losing among LV due to the huge enthusiasm gap & the firing up of the conservative base & some independents for Trump!

Sept. 6-11; 40% of the survey respondents were Democrats, 38% Republicans and 22% independents — a generally representative breakdown of turnout by party in Florida presidential elections.

At the end of the article it says that they purposely over-sampled Hispanics

Oversample generally means they poll more of a subgroup to get a lower margin of error, but their share of the vote is not overstated. For example, a national poll of 400 might only get 50 Hispanics to respond, which is a huge margin of error. So they could additionally focus poll 200 Hispanics, use the R/D split, and then fit it back to the 50/400.

You are such a hackish poster. And you absolutely work for the HRC campaign.

This may be the least self aware post I have ever seen, congratulations

Trump +8 in Missouri in an internal poll for Republican gubernatorial candidate Eric Greitens by the Tarrance Group (http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article104745351.html):

Trump +8 in Missouri in an internal poll for Republican gubernatorial candidate Eric Greitens by the Tarrance Group (http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article104745351.html):

The survey, taken this week of 458 likely voters and with a 4.5 percent margin of error, shows Clinton up 46-38 over Donald Trump, with Gary Johnson garnering 10 percent of the vote. (Clinton is up 5 in a two-way.)

President Obama won the district by 1 point in 2012 and 9 points in 2008.

The survey, taken this week of 458 likely voters and with a 4.5 percent margin of error, shows Clinton up 46-38 over Donald Trump, with Gary Johnson garnering 10 percent of the vote. (Clinton is up 5 in a two-way.)

President Obama won the district by 1 point in 2012 and 9 points in 2008.

Interesting how they didn't release the Senate race numbers. Not a good sign for Cortez-Masto.

The survey, taken this week of 458 likely voters and with a 4.5 percent margin of error, shows Clinton up 46-38 over Donald Trump, with Gary Johnson garnering 10 percent of the vote. (Clinton is up 5 in a two-way.)

President Obama won the district by 1 point in 2012 and 9 points in 2008.

Interesting how they didn't release the Senate race numbers. Not a good sign for Cortez-Masto.

House internals don't usually poll senate candidate, so this isn't exactly surprising.

Not that it matters much, since most states don't award electoral votes based on whoever wins each congressional district. However, I would have bragging rights if I correctly predicted every CD for the presidential election. ;D

Dos anyone know if there are polls for IL-6 and IL-14? Obama lost both districts by 8% and 10% respectively, however that poll of the 10th shows Trump vastly under-preforming Romney's percentage there. Trump seems like a pretty bad fit for the Chicago suburbs, so perhaps his weakness is not just limited to one district.

Takers for what? I doubt Maine pollsters poll in French. As you pointed out, French-speaking Mainers are less than 10% of the population. And most of them probably speak English, too, anyway, like many Québécois.

Takers for what? I doubt Maine pollsters poll in French. As you pointed out, French-speaking Mainers are less than 10% of the population. And most of them probably speak English, too, anyway, like many Québécois.

According to The Tarrance Group, in Nevada's 3rd congressional district, Donald Trump has a three point advantage (43%-40%) over Hillary Clinton in the Presidential race and Trump has a three point advantage (38%-35%) among voters making a definite choice.

To clarify: My 5 point internal rule--when a candidate puts out an internal poll, their real position, and the position of the party, is 5 points worse than the internal.

Applying this to Nevada, Tarkanian is in a dead heat for NV-3, Heck leads by 5 for Senate and Clinton leads by 2. In 2012, Obama won NV-3 by 0.8% so Clinton looks to be in a good position in the state. Even if the internal were correct (the most optimistic scenario), Clinton would hold a narrow lead statewide as NV-3 was about 5-6 points to the right of the state in 2012.

Iowa is at best mixed news for the Democrats. Obama won IA-1 by 13.5% in 2012 so Clinton needs a larger lead here to win the state. Using the 5 point internal role, Blum leads by 11, Grassley leads by 18 and Clinton leads by 7. If Clinton loses 6.5 points to Obama's margin in IA-1 she is likely trailing in Iowa by 2-3 points

To clarify: My 5 point internal rule--when a candidate puts out an internal poll, their real position, and the position of the party, is 5 points worse than the internal.

Applying this to Nevada, Tarkanian is in a dead heat for NV-3, Heck leads by 5 for Senate and Clinton leads by 2. In 2012, Obama won NV-3 by 0.8% so Clinton looks to be in a good position in the state. Even if the internal were correct (the most optimistic scenario), Clinton would hold a narrow lead statewide as NV-3 was about 5-6 points to the right of the state in 2012.

Iowa is at best mixed news for the Democrats. Obama won IA-1 by 13.5% in 2012 so Clinton needs a larger lead here to win the state. Using the 5 point internal role, Blum leads by 11, Grassley leads by 18 and Clinton leads by 7. If Clinton loses 6.5 points to Obama's margin in IA-1 she is likely trailing in Iowa by 2-3 points

I was just going to mention isn't this a D +5 PVI according to Cook Political reports, as well as the most Democratic CD in the state?

Clinton +7 in NJ-05 in Democratic internal. Obama lost it by 4 in 2012 and 2 in 2008.

https://www.scribd.com/document/326407714/NJ-05-GYH-for-HMP-Oct-2016

That means Clinton is running slightly ahead of Obama in this district even with a 5 point adjustment against the Democrats. Would also imply she is winning both counties on Long Island since those areas are very similar

Sept. 6-11; 40% of the survey respondents were Democrats, 38% Republicans and 22% independents — a generally representative breakdown of turnout by party in Florida presidential elections.

At the end of the article it says that they purposely over-sampled Hispanics

Oversample generally means they poll more of a subgroup to get a lower margin of error, but their share of the vote is not overstated. For example, a national poll of 400 might only get 50 Hispanics to respond, which is a huge margin of error. So they could additionally focus poll 200 Hispanics, use the R/D split, and then fit it back to the 50/400.

You are such a hackish poster. And you absolutely work for the HRC campaign.

Mr. Trump has already slipped perceptibly in public polls, trailing widely this week in Pennsylvania and by smaller margins in Florida and North Carolina — three states he cannot afford to lose. But private polling by both parties shows an even more precipitous drop

Mr. Trump has already slipped perceptibly in public polls, trailing widely this week in Pennsylvania and by smaller margins in Florida and North Carolina — three states he cannot afford to lose. But private polling by both parties shows an even more precipitous drop

This part of the article is also interesting...Blunt trails Kander in internal polling for MO-Sen and Clinton is closing the deficit there. That would indicate that Trump is losing a small piece (2-3%) of his base

Quote

Compounding their difficulties, Republicans are also fending off a challenge to Senator Richard M. Burr in North Carolina, a state Mrs. Clinton is determined to win, and have also become just as worried about Senator Roy Blunt’s prospects in Missouri. Strategists in both parties who have seen internal polling say Mr. Blunt, whose seat initially seemed safe, is now trailing his Democratic challenger, Jason Kander, a deft campaigner who has been helped by Mrs. Clinton’s narrowing deficit in the state.

This has to have been one of the most impactful Presidential debates ever. Trump is crashing everywhere.

The 2004 and 2008 debates also had similar shifts (though the 2008 debate was mixed up Lehman Brothers and the aftermath of that). But IIRC in 2004 Bush was leading by like 10 points before the first debate, and then Kerry brought it back to a tie.

Two post-debate polls of likely Colorado voters this week showed Clinton leading Trump by 11 points overall..“This is her high water mark right now,” said a GOP operative whose private polling showed Clinton at her highest point all year.

Clinton +14 in Democratic Internal of CA-49. Romney won it by 6 in 2012 and Obama won it by 1 in 2008. Applegate leads Issa by 4. Clinton is almost certainly going to win OC if these numbers are close to true.

As usual, CA-07 will be close. It's nice that at least one of my votes really counts. I've been push polled by a Dem poll; there will probably be more.

I doubt that Jones is ahead by that much if Clinton leads by 4. Bera has been hammering Jones on sexual harassment allegations, while Jones has been attacking illegal fundraising by Bera's father. This will be a close race for the third time in a row. I expect that Bera will pull it off though.

Clinton +14 in Democratic Internal of CA-49. Romney won it by 6 in 2012 and Obama won it by 1 in 2008. Applegate leads Issa by 4. Clinton is almost certainly going to win OC if these numbers are close to true.

As usual, CA-07 will be close. It's nice that at least one of my votes really counts. I've been push polled by a Dem poll; there will probably be more.

I doubt that Jones is ahead by that much if Clinton leads by 4. Bera has been hammering Jones on sexual harassment allegations, while Jones has been attacking illegal fundraising by Bera's father. This will be a close race for the third time in a row. I expect that Bera will pull it off though.

Former resident of CA-04 speaking.

I fully expect Bera to win. He pulled it off against Doug Ose, former Congressman from that district (back in the mid-00's before redistricting). Ose was a pro choice Republican and on the whole, very moderate. Scott Jones, on the other hand, is not.

Clinton +14 in Democratic Internal of CA-49. Romney won it by 6 in 2012 and Obama won it by 1 in 2008. Applegate leads Issa by 4. Clinton is almost certainly going to win OC if these numbers are close to true.

Clinton +14 in Democratic Internal of CA-49. Romney won it by 6 in 2012 and Obama won it by 1 in 2008. Applegate leads Issa by 4. Clinton is almost certainly going to win OC if these numbers are close to true.

John Harwood tweet...Trumps advisers say their internal polls have them ahead in Iowa, Ohio and Nevada and behind in NH, NC and FL. PA, CO, VA and the upper Midwest are significant long shots for him

https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/784122190555848704

They're basically admitting that their candidate can't make it to 270 then. If that doesn't signify the end, then I don't know what does.

If Trump can get back ahead in NH, NC and FL (which they don't call long shots) they get to 269. ME2 gets him to 270. If you look at his TV spending last week, this seems to be their strategy, with CO being their only additional significant spend as a possible backup.

It's a risky strategy to bet the farm on a plan that relies on winning NV or CO but if PA, WI, and MI are looking to stay in the blue wall, what other choice do they have? They are focussing on states Bush Jr won at last once except for NM (too many mexicans) and VA (home of Kaine)

Does anyone know if internal polling is more accurate than public polls?

I'd imagine so since they use voter registration files and go by vote history rather than people that claim they're likely to vote. Public polls I imagine understate Democrat voters who tell pollsters they're unsure of voting but end up voting anyway.

Does anyone know if internal polling is more accurate than public polls?

I'd imagine so since they use voter registration files and go by vote history rather than people that claim they're likely to vote. Public polls I imagine understate Democrat voters who tell pollsters they're unsure of voting but end up voting anyway.

Obama's internals were very accurate in 2012, while Romney's were horribly off.

Internal polls should be better because they start with the voter data and they have their own metriics ofrom their GOTV operations, but they can get things wrong if they make bad assumptions. Romney's team assumed they would get their voters out and Obama wouldn't. They were wrong. It would be curious to see what assumptions the Trump team are using to show leads in NV and OH. I would bet that Clinton internals have her up in both.

It's like that recent upshot experiment where they gave the same raw data to four different pollsters, and each had a different result. Some showing trump up some Clinton up.

More internal poll goodness. Remember when Gallup said they were not polling the Presidential race directly? Well apparently they are, and here is a peek into their methodology for a poll they took from September 14-18.

Quote

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Sept. 14-18, 2016, with a random sample of 1,033 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, including 931 registered voters. For results based on the total sample of registered voters, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. For results based on the 444 registered voters who support either Hillary Clinton or the 407 registered voters who support Donald Trump, the margin of sampling error is ±6 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting.

When doing the back-calculations, this was a national RV poll of 931 registered voters. Their results were:

Clinton 444/931 (47.7%, rounded up to 48)Trump 407/931 (43.7%, rounded up to 44)Undecided or Third Party 80/931 (8.6%)

John Harwood tweet...Trumps advisers say their internal polls have them ahead in Iowa, Ohio and Nevada and behind in NH, NC and FL. PA, CO, VA and the upper Midwest are significant long shots for him

https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/784122190555848704

They're basically admitting that their candidate can't make it to 270 then. If that doesn't signify the end, then I don't know what does.

Clinton pretty much has Trump 99% boxed out if that scenario is true. No complacency though

This kind of reminds me of a certain German leader whose close confidants and military advisers told him while the Red Army was in the outer suburbs of Berlin, and Montgomery and Eisenhower are racing from the West as fast as they can, while the whole time the dude is camped out in his bunker listening to the historical equivalent of Baghdad Bob, and no one will say what the actual reality of the situation is.

Internal polls should be better because they start with the voter data and they have their own metriics ofrom their GOTV operations, but they can get things wrong if they make bad assumptions. Romney's team assumed they would get their voters out and Obama wouldn't. They were wrong. It would be curious to see what assumptions the Trump team are using to show leads in NV and OH. I would bet that Clinton internals have her up in both.

It's like that recent upshot experiment where they gave the same raw data to four different pollsters, and each had a different result. Some showing trump up some Clinton up.

Internal polls may be better for people working in the campaign who get to see all of them, but obviously we don't get to see all of them.

From the Democratic side, we are selectively leaked the ones that look good (e.g. statistical fluctuations in their direction). From the Republican side, we get more because that ship is leaking like crazy...but we generally expect Democratic polls to be of better quality, because all the young people with brains are working for the Democrats.

But yes, obviously it's not good for Trump that he's down in 4 states that he needs to win, and his only possible path to victory is the FL/NC/NH/ME-2 eye of the needle to 270 (and hope there are no faithless electors). Also doesn't help that those states aren't the best correlated, so pulling the inside straight here isn't likely at all.

It would be fun, but they've proven themselves relatively thrifty (let Sanders outspend them in many states). And they had the chance in Georgia and passed, and are barely advertising in Arizona. Begich spent huge on ads and ground game and couldn't win in 2014. She can't come in at the last minute and expect to win.

Plus, why play around with Alaska, when she can secure North Carolina?

It would be fun, but they've proven themselves relatively thrifty (let Sanders outspend them in many states). And they had the chance in Georgia and passed, and are barely advertising in Arizona. Begich spent huge on ads and ground game and couldn't win in 2014. She can't come in at the last minute and expect to win.

Plus, why play around with Alaska, when she can secure North Carolina?

If these look really good in the last week, don't be shocked if Clinton is in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, and Missouri. Kaine and Sanders maybe get shipped up to Alaska if it looks close.

It would be fun, but they've proven themselves relatively thrifty (let Sanders outspend them in many states). And they had the chance in Georgia and passed, and are barely advertising in Arizona. Begich spent huge on ads and ground game and couldn't win in 2014. She can't come in at the last minute and expect to win.

Plus, why play around with Alaska, when she can secure North Carolina?

Sending anyone to Alaska is kind of a waste. It's only three electoral votes, and takes about 8 hours or so to fly there, depending on where you're leaving from. There are more important stops on the mainland that surrogates can go to instead.

It would be fun, but they've proven themselves relatively thrifty (let Sanders outspend them in many states). And they had the chance in Georgia and passed, and are barely advertising in Arizona. Begich spent huge on ads and ground game and couldn't win in 2014. She can't come in at the last minute and expect to win.

Plus, why play around with Alaska, when she can secure North Carolina?

A caveat on that internal rule; I believe Murkowski is #NeverTrump so her people might be playing it more straight than other pollsters for GOP candidates. That being said, a GOP internal skews GOP even in that circumstance. Maybe not 5 pts but it does skew GOP a little bit

As many of you know, Gallup was embarrassed back in 2012 when they had Romney winning by 1, so they stopped officially releasing horserace numbers.

However, they do still poll the question, but it seems that they are hiding the results. It says in the release that they sampled 1033 adults, and subsequently 931 registered voters, and that 444 of those registered voters support Clinton and 407 of them support Trump. Doing the math, that breaks down to:

As many of you know, Gallup was embarrassed back in 2012 when they had Romney winning by 1, so they stopped officially releasing horserace numbers.

However, they do still poll the question, but it seems that they are hiding the results. It says in the release that they sampled 1033 adults, and subsequently 931 registered voters, and that 444 of those registered voters support Clinton and 407 of them support Trump. Doing the math, that breaks down to:

Every - or almost every - PPP private poll is for a Democrat or Democrat-leaning organization. When it comes to their private polling, PPP is as partisan as any pollster gets.

But their methods, robo polling, has an R lean this cycle. No interviews in Spanish and no live callers, so it's not like they would methodologically favor D's.

When selectively releasing poll info for private pollsters, it's all about the special sauce pollsters use to achieve the result. For example, is PPP's reported result before or after pushing voters against Trump after message testing for their client? Is the turnout model what most expect or the best-case-scenario for their client? What state are they polling? A state with a lot of moderate Republicans and NeverTrumpers like Utah or a state with a lot of Trump supporters?

There's also no reason a robo-poller can't poll in Spanish (press 2 for Spanish is perfectly possible), and no evidence that not polling in Spanish even matters in the state polled for their client.

The campaign was planning to survey an array of Republican-leaning states this week, including Arizona, Georgia, Missouri and Indiana, to determine how competitive Mrs. Clinton is with Mr. Trump, according to a senior Clinton adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Sending Mrs. Clinton to those states may be of little assistance to the party’s candidates, but an infusion of money dedicated to voter turnout could ensure that she enters the White House with a solid Senate majority and help Democrats make substantial gains in the House.

Democratic strategists involved in House and Senate races said they envisioned Mr. Trump’s collapse precipitating a broad shift in the political landscape, with tossup races moving firmly into their hands, and campaigns that were once long shots suddenly becoming competitive. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee planned to do rapid polling early this week to measure the impact of Mr. Trump on the House battlefield.

The campaign was planning to survey an array of Republican-leaning states this week, including Arizona, Georgia, Missouri and Indiana, to determine how competitive Mrs. Clinton is with Mr. Trump, according to a senior Clinton adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Sending Mrs. Clinton to those states may be of little assistance to the party’s candidates, but an infusion of money dedicated to voter turnout could ensure that she enters the White House with a solid Senate majority and help Democrats make substantial gains in the House.

Democratic strategists involved in House and Senate races said they envisioned Mr. Trump’s collapse precipitating a broad shift in the political landscape, with tossup races moving firmly into their hands, and campaigns that were once long shots suddenly becoming competitive. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee planned to do rapid polling early this week to measure the impact of Mr. Trump on the House battlefield.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/republicans-trump.html

Clinton's internals are showing a big national lead and she wants to see how far into red territory it extends

A former Cruz guy on another forum I post on says he got his hands on some brand-new Trump internals, via a contact in the campaign. Take these with as many grains of salt as you want, but here they are:

Like I said, take those numbers with as many grains of salt as you want - but I think you're giving the Trump campaign a little too much credit.

According to the guy that posted these, Other/Undecided is getting a larger percentage in Utah than Trump is (they didn't include McMullin or Johnson as a separate option)

Quote

The theory the internal pollsters are running with is that people who choose "other candidate" will actually vote third party on the day - while if you list Johnson or McMullin, they will tend to get more support than they will actually get on the day.

A former Cruz guy on another forum I post on says he got his hands on some brand-new Trump internals, via a contact in the campaign. Take these with as many grains of salt as you want, but here they are:

I would take anything from Mike Murphy with a grain of salt. He completely failed Jeb. Internal national polls not really helpful either.

Quote

For instance, the super pac consistently bought broadcast-television advertising in the biggest, most expensive markets at the highest possible rates. It FedExed tabletlike mailers to New Hampshire voters that played a documentary about Bush’s life, and put just 1.4 percent of its budget toward digital ads, an abnormally tiny amount for a top super pac, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

"Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has concluded that at least two traditionally Republican states, Georgia and Arizona, are realistic targets for her campaign to win over. And Republican polling has found that Mr. Trump is at dire risk of losing Georgia, according to people briefed on the polls, who spoke on the condition of anonymity."

Rep. Joe Heck is still slightly ahead of Catherine Cortez Masto in the U.S. Senate race but Hillary Clinton is now significantly in front of Donald Trump in Nevada, according to a new GOP poll.

Heck is ahead 47-44 while Hillary Clinton leads 45-39. The survey, taken by the well-respected Public Opinion Strategies for the Senate Leadership Fund this week, is of 600 registered voters and has a 4 percent margin of error. (It has 21 percent Hispanic respondents.)http://www.ktnv.com/news/ralston/heck-hanging-onto-lead-trump-falling-behind-in-new-gop-poll

CNN Inside Politics: Internal Republican polling has Trump trailing by double digits in PA and NH. As a result, Toomey and Ayotte also trail, but only by a few points. In NV, their polling has Trump "trailing by single digits, but Joe Heck up a little." That information is in the CNN embedded video.

Other tidbits on AZ and GA: Clinton's team thinks they have a better shot at AZ than GA. Robby Mook doesn't want to expand the map because his thinking is to get the 270 EVs as painlessly as possible. However there are talks to plan trips to AZ and/or GA in the last week or two if their polling says they're in striking distance. They consider GA winnable but tough because the Atlanta suburbs are still behaving more like traditional GOP suburbs than the DC, Charlotte or Research Triangle suburbs

Title: Re: Internal poll megathread
Post by: Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More on October 16, 2016, 02:01:48 pm

Other tidbits on AZ and GA: Clinton's team thinks they have a better shot at AZ than GA. Robby Mook doesn't want to expand the map because his thinking is to get the 270 EVs as painlessly as possible. However there are talks to plan trips to AZ and/or GA in the last week or two if their polling says they're in striking distance. They consider GA winnable but tough because the Atlanta suburbs are still behaving more like traditional GOP suburbs than the DC, Charlotte or Research Triangle suburbs

I can see that. It is where a Senior Developer and a Hospital Revenue Bureaucrat can still have 2.5 kids and still live like Republicans.

Other tidbits on AZ and GA: Clinton's team thinks they have a better shot at AZ than GA. Robby Mook doesn't want to expand the map because his thinking is to get the 270 EVs as painlessly as possible. However there are talks to plan trips to AZ and/or GA in the last week or two if their polling says they're in striking distance. They consider GA winnable but tough because the Atlanta suburbs are still behaving more like traditional GOP suburbs than the DC, Charlotte or Research Triangle suburbs

If these states' senate races were competitive then I'm pretty sure she would contest them more vigorously.

Other tidbits on AZ and GA: Clinton's team thinks they have a better shot at AZ than GA. Robby Mook doesn't want to expand the map because his thinking is to get the 270 EVs as painlessly as possible. However there are talks to plan trips to AZ and/or GA in the last week or two if their polling says they're in striking distance. They consider GA winnable but tough because the Atlanta suburbs are still behaving more like traditional GOP suburbs than the DC, Charlotte or Research Triangle suburbs

Hmmm that's interesting strategic logic there. I understand the concept of wanting to focus time and resources on OH,FL, and NC and a lesser extent NV, but I think they might be playing it too safe in the case of AZ, which statewide polling and Trump's own internals clearly consider to be endangered, judging by his repeated recent visits to the state, and it is worth it in the long term to boost Dem turnout and infrastructure in a state that is starting to shift purple. GA, I can understand considering the structural advantages the Reps have and how difficult it is to get that extra 1% to move it across the finish line, not to mention the cost of the Atlanta media market.

However, I would trade IA for AZ any day as a medium and longer term investment.

Other tidbits on AZ and GA: Clinton's team thinks they have a better shot at AZ than GA. Robby Mook doesn't want to expand the map because his thinking is to get the 270 EVs as painlessly as possible. However there are talks to plan trips to AZ and/or GA in the last week or two if their polling says they're in striking distance. They consider GA winnable but tough because the Atlanta suburbs are still behaving more like traditional GOP suburbs than the DC, Charlotte or Research Triangle suburbs

Hmmm that's interesting strategic logic there. I understand the concept of wanting to focus time and resources on OH,FL, and NC and a lesser extent NV, but I think they might be playing it too safe in the case of AZ, which statewide polling and Trump's own internals clearly consider to be endangered, judging by his repeated recent visits to the state, and it is worth it in the long term to boost Dem turnout and infrastructure in a state that is starting to shift purple. GA, I can understand considering the structural advantages the Reps have and how difficult it is to get that extra 1% to move it across the finish line, not to mention the cost of the Atlanta media market.

However, I would trade IA for AZ any day as a medium and longer term investment.

I think they care more about running up the score in PA, NH, NC, and maybe Florida to try and win the Senate races there, instead of going for AZ/GA which would look nice on the final map but don't (right now) have competitive Senate races to justify the effort.

NBC article on Arizona today - nothing about internal polls but related to the posts above.

Arizona seems to be the prime candidate for playing the role Indiana did in 2008—a state that one wouldn't expect to tip over to the Democrat, but where a serious asymmetry in ground game coupled with a bad macro environment for the Republican makes for a surprise.

Ads only help very marginally and it's not like Trump is spending anything in AZ or GA either. If Hillary wins by over 7% nationally then AZ is possible and GA at maybe 8% or so. I would add an Atlanta rally because it's easy to schedule between FL and NC visits.

NBC moved the Dakotas and Montana to Lean Republican on their battleground map...do they have access to polling that we don't have to make that conclusion?

How does NBC define lean versus safe?

I don't know...I don't work for them and they haven't revealed the secret sauce recipe

Alaska amazingly will move to Lean Republican with this poll. Even taking into account that this is a Dem internal, the last four polls have been Trump by 8, 6, 3, and now 1. Each pollster (Ivan Moore Research and Lake Research) has shown a five point shift to Clinton since the first debate and the Access Hollywood tapes

NBC moved the Dakotas and Montana to Lean Republican on their battleground map...do they have access to polling that we don't have to make that conclusion?

How does NBC define lean versus safe?

I don't know...I don't work for them and they haven't revealed the secret sauce recipe

My one question, cheap Google Consumer Research South Dakota poll that's currently in the field is only half-done, but so far, I can tell you there are no real surprises except perhaps the Johnson percentage. It's pretty much in line with what I expected from South Dakota.

Oof, if Clinton is winning this kind of district by 13, she will be competitive in counties like Delaware County (OH), Sheboygan (WI), and will win Northeast Iowa by the margins required to carry the state

Clinton +17 in CA-07. Obama won it by 5 points in 2008 and 4 points in 2012. Woah if true.

Did they poll anyone in Folsom? I'm from that district and I'm rather shocked to be honest. +10 for Clinton and +5 for Bera would be what I expected, but this is crazy. Both Bera and Jones have had attack ads put out against them re Jones's sexual harassment issues, Bera's father's illegal fundraising and Bera's support for the Iran deal. It is a decently educated suburban district, so maybe that plays into it? I really haven't seen that many signs for any candidate for president and only a smattering of signs for Jones.

Clinton +17 in CA-07. Obama won it by 5 points in 2008 and 4 points in 2012. Woah if true.

Did they poll anyone in Folsom? I'm from that district and I'm rather shocked to be honest. +10 for Clinton and +5 for Bera would be what I expected, but this is crazy. Both Bera and Jones have had attack ads put out against them re Jones's sexual harassment issues, Bera's father's illegal fundraising and Bera's support for the Iran deal. It is a decently educated suburban district, so maybe that plays into it? I really haven't seen that many signs for any candidate for president and only a smattering of signs for Jones.

Well educated suburb and Jones was one of the first to support Trump.

Bera isn't going to win by anywhere near that margin, but it could be around 3-4 points. I am from that district too.

Clinton +17 in CA-07. Obama won it by 5 points in 2008 and 4 points in 2012. Woah if true.

Did they poll anyone in Folsom? I'm from that district and I'm rather shocked to be honest. +10 for Clinton and +5 for Bera would be what I expected, but this is crazy. Both Bera and Jones have had attack ads put out against them re Jones's sexual harassment issues, Bera's father's illegal fundraising and Bera's support for the Iran deal. It is a decently educated suburban district, so maybe that plays into it? I really haven't seen that many signs for any candidate for president and only a smattering of signs for Jones.

Why do Republicans think that the Iran deal is a silver bullet against Democrats?Unless there is an abnormal number of Orthodox Jews in the district this seems like a non-issue for most voters.

Clinton +17 in CA-07. Obama won it by 5 points in 2008 and 4 points in 2012. Woah if true.

Did they poll anyone in Folsom? I'm from that district and I'm rather shocked to be honest. +10 for Clinton and +5 for Bera would be what I expected, but this is crazy. Both Bera and Jones have had attack ads put out against them re Jones's sexual harassment issues, Bera's father's illegal fundraising and Bera's support for the Iran deal. It is a decently educated suburban district, so maybe that plays into it? I really haven't seen that many signs for any candidate for president and only a smattering of signs for Jones.

Why do Republicans think that the Iran deal is a silver bullet against Democrats?Unless there is an abnormal number of Orthodox Jews in the district this seems like a non-issue for most voters.

Per piecing together Kraushaar's replies to people, Republicans lead in 6 of the 7 races within the margin of error; the one where the Democrat leads is NV. The 6 races in question seem to be PA/NH/NC/IN/MO/FL; he repudiates someone suggesting Wisconsin saying that's not within the margin of error. Presumably Democrats are therefore pretty safely up in Illinois and Wisconsin.

So...Republican internal polling is suggesting that if the election were right now, the Democrats would gain only 2 Senate seats (IL/WI), but that with even a small push they would gain 8 (those two, plus MO/IN/NC/PA/NH/FL; he notes that the Democrats are putting up the weakest effort in FL, so presumably it would be last to flip). That would be enough to make anyone panicky.

Josh K is a pretty pathetic GOP-spinning mouthpiece. They are likely in worse shape than that in those senate races.

Yeah, if this is what the GOP is spinning through sympathetic "journalists" then they really may be collapsing across the board.

This was his next tweet:

Quote

Of the seven races, GOP candidate holds leads betw 1-3 pts in six races... Heck down a couple in NV.

The Polls show Dems currently trailing in six of the seven toss-up senate races? If Rubio-Murphy isn't in the margin of error, that means that the GOP is claiming to have polling have Johnson up in WI and Bayh losing in IN. It's garbage.

As was already mentioned Josh spins as hard as possible for the GOP. Republicans tell him stuff sometimes because they know he'll uncritically repeat verbatim anything he hears from Republicans. This is basically a NSCC press release. The only notable thing is them admitting Trump is collapsing. The comments about the Senate races I take with a grain of salt.

Per piecing together Kraushaar's replies to people, Republicans lead in 6 of the 7 races within the margin of error; the one where the Democrat leads is NV. The 6 races in question seem to be PA/NH/NC/IN/MO/FL; he repudiates someone suggesting Wisconsin saying that's not within the margin of error. Presumably Democrats are therefore pretty safely up in Illinois and Wisconsin.

So...Republican internal polling is suggesting that if the election were right now, the Democrats would gain only 2 Senate seats (IL/WI), but that with even a small push they would gain 8 (those two, plus MO/IN/NC/PA/NH/FL; he notes that the Democrats are putting up the weakest effort in FL, so presumably it would be last to flip). That would be enough to make anyone panicky.

You have it right apparently. He said it was FL and not WI, which makes zero sense. How is Rubio only up 3 in FL and yet Bayh is losing in IN? Just proves GOP internal polling is crap if that's the case.

I love it how the right leaning writers on twitter are retweeting this like its a good thing, when really it shows that if this election behaves the same way it has every cycle since 2006 the Democrats will probably pick up 6-8 seats. Especially with the Clinton camp reconfiguring their message to emphasize the importance of electing Democrats down ballot.

If their polls are showing huge margins for Hillary Clinton and their Republican Senate candidates within the MoE, they're assuming a large number of Republicans disaffected with Trump will show up on Election Day anyway to cast a vote against Trump and then vote R downballot. A questionable assumption.

If their polls are showing huge margins for Hillary Clinton and their Republican Senate candidates within the MoE, they're assuming a large number of Republicans disaffected with Trump will show up on Election Day anyway to cast a vote against Trump and then vote R downballot. A questionable assumption.

Does this theory (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/how-donald-trumps-extremism-could-help-downballot-republicans-214361) impress you at all? So far, I see little evidence myself of down ballot damage to Pubs arising from the Trump tanking.

If their polls are showing huge margins for Hillary Clinton and their Republican Senate candidates within the MoE, they're assuming a large number of Republicans disaffected with Trump will show up on Election Day anyway to cast a vote against Trump and then vote R downballot. A questionable assumption.

Does this theory (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/how-donald-trumps-extremism-could-help-downballot-republicans-214361) impress you at all? So far, I see little evidence myself of down ballot damage to Pubs arising from the Trump tanking.

Oh, I can easily imagine that Republican senators have some benefit from looking moderate next to Trump. I'm also thinking that presidential candidates aside, this election was likely to favor Republicans because Obama is coming off of two turns. The fact we're discussing D gains of only 4-5 seats with a reasonable Hillary win in a cycle where Rs are defending 24 seats to the Dems' 10 proves that. For me, it's all about who actually shows up to vote, and who stays home.

Senate republicans have shared internal polls to the National Review and some of the results are interesting

According to these pollsClinton +14 in NHClinton +11 in PAClinton nar­rowly beats Trump in AZTrump +2 in MO

And senate

Quote

f the sev­en most com­pet­it­ive Sen­ate races, Re­pub­lic­ans are cling­ing to leads in six (Pennsylvania, Mis­souri, New Hamp­shire, Flor­ida, In­di­ana, and North Car­o­lina), and barely trail­ing in a sev­enth (Nevada).

Senate republicans have shared internal polls to the National Review and some of the results are interesting

According to these pollsClinton +14 in NHClinton +11 in PAClinton nar­rowly beats Trump in AZTrump +2 in MO

And senate

Quote

f the sev­en most com­pet­it­ive Sen­ate races, Re­pub­lic­ans are cling­ing to leads in six (Pennsylvania, Mis­souri, New Hamp­shire, Flor­ida, In­di­ana, and North Car­o­lina), and barely trail­ing in a sev­enth (Nevada).

What are your thoughts? Belieavable?

Question is, will NH and PA be called at poll closing? If they are, we know what type of night it's going to be.

Senate republicans have shared internal polls to the National Review and some of the results are interesting

According to these pollsClinton +14 in NHClinton +11 in PAClinton nar­rowly beats Trump in AZTrump +2 in MO

And senate

Quote

f the sev­en most com­pet­it­ive Sen­ate races, Re­pub­lic­ans are cling­ing to leads in six (Pennsylvania, Mis­souri, New Hamp­shire, Flor­ida, In­di­ana, and North Car­o­lina), and barely trail­ing in a sev­enth (Nevada).

What are your thoughts? Belieavable?

Question is, will NH and PA be called at poll closing? If they are, we know what type of night it's going to be.

For President, probably both will be called immediately. For Senate, neither.

Senate republicans have shared internal polls to the National Review and some of the results are interesting

According to these pollsClinton +14 in NHClinton +11 in PAClinton nar­rowly beats Trump in AZTrump +2 in MO

And senate

Quote

f the sev­en most com­pet­it­ive Sen­ate races, Re­pub­lic­ans are cling­ing to leads in six (Pennsylvania, Mis­souri, New Hamp­shire, Flor­ida, In­di­ana, and North Car­o­lina), and barely trail­ing in a sev­enth (Nevada).

What are your thoughts? Belieavable?

Question is, will NH and PA be called at poll closing? If they are, we know what type of night it's going to be.

For President, probably both will be called immediately. For Senate, neither.

Probably, bigger question is do the senate races get classified as too early to call or too close to call

In a recent poll conducted by The Terrance Group and Lake Research Partners, we have reached 20% in key Central Plains states. Notably, we are also polling at 17% in Clinton's "home" state of New York and 12% in mountain states.

In a recent poll conducted by The Terrance Group and Lake Research Partners, we have reached 20% in key Central Plains states. Notably, we are also polling at 17% in Clinton's "home" state of New York and 12% in mountain states.

In a recent poll conducted by The Terrance Group and Lake Research Partners, we have reached 20% in key Central Plains states. Notably, we are also polling at 17% in Clinton's "home" state of New York and 12% in mountain states.

Erick Erickson ‏@EWErickson 4m4 minutes agoWashington Post has Clinton up 4 in Georgia. Internal GOP polling has her up 5 in Georgia.

I really wanna believe it... but the Clinton campaign has clearly signaled that the state isn't worth the time and effort. I'd like to see a quality public pollster release something.

Anecdotally: I voted after work today in Forsyth County. There was no wait, and perhaps a third of the voting machines were occupied. The poll worker I asked said they'd had a steady stream, but it never got busy enough to require a line. For comparison, when I voted early in 2012 there was a very long backup (same county, but different location).

Erick Erickson ‏@EWErickson 4m4 minutes agoWashington Post has Clinton up 4 in Georgia. Internal GOP polling has her up 5 in Georgia.

I really wanna believe it... but the Clinton campaign has clearly signaled that the state isn't worth the time and effort. I'd like to see a quality public pollster release something.

Anecdotally: I voted after work today in Forsyth County. There was no wait, and perhaps a third of the voting machines were occupied. The poll worker I asked said they'd had a steady stream, but it never got busy enough to require a line. For comparison, when I voted early in 2012 there was a very long backup (same county, but different location).

Well that's quite interesting. If Trump can't hold Romney's margins in the Atlanta exurbs, then he's probably at risk of losing Gwinnett and maybe Cobb County. There are enough potential Clinton voters to turn the state blue, but it's pretty late in the game to a make serious effort to make it happen.

Even with the 5 point rule these polls indicate strength in suburban areas for Clinton. PA-16 is an R+6 district and if it is going Dem, Clinton is up by at least 10-12 points in PA. That district has a lot of rural areas in the T which you'd expect would be teabagger country

Erick Erickson ‏@EWErickson 4m4 minutes agoWashington Post has Clinton up 4 in Georgia. Internal GOP polling has her up 5 in Georgia.

I really wanna believe it... but the Clinton campaign has clearly signaled that the state isn't worth the time and effort. I'd like to see a quality public pollster release something.

Anecdotally: I voted after work today in Forsyth County. There was no wait, and perhaps a third of the voting machines were occupied. The poll worker I asked said they'd had a steady stream, but it never got busy enough to require a line. For comparison, when I voted early in 2012 there was a very long backup (same county, but different location).

Well that's quite interesting. If Trump can't hold Romney's margins in the Atlanta exurbs, then he's probably at risk of losing Gwinnett and maybe Cobb County. There are enough potential Clinton voters to turn the state blue, but it's pretty late in the game to a make serious effort to make it happen.

I think they should have been here earlier, but it just feels on the ground like she can win. I'm thinking Cherokee/Gwinnett will lose a few GOP voters (college educated/evangelical), but he's going to lose a horrific amount of support in Rubio country (Fulton/Dekalb). Even though that's not his base, it's a lot of votes. Lots of moderate Republicans I know refuse to vote for Trump.

http://elections.sos.ga.gov/Elections/voterabsenteefile.doKind of hard to use since they split the counties, but...below are the vote in person numbers as well as D-R margin and vote count. I'll try and figure out how to make a script to combine them to be easily pivotable, but for now, just went into each file...

Erick Erickson ‏@EWErickson 4m4 minutes agoWashington Post has Clinton up 4 in Georgia. Internal GOP polling has her up 5 in Georgia.

I really wanna believe it... but the Clinton campaign has clearly signaled that the state isn't worth the time and effort. I'd like to see a quality public pollster release something.

Anecdotally: I voted after work today in Forsyth County. There was no wait, and perhaps a third of the voting machines were occupied. The poll worker I asked said they'd had a steady stream, but it never got busy enough to require a line. For comparison, when I voted early in 2012 there was a very long backup (same county, but different location).

Well that's quite interesting. If Trump can't hold Romney's margins in the Atlanta exurbs, then he's probably at risk of losing Gwinnett and maybe Cobb County. There are enough potential Clinton voters to turn the state blue, but it's pretty late in the game to a make serious effort to make it happen.

I think they should have been here earlier, but it just feels on the ground like she can win. I'm thinking Cherokee/Gwinnett will lose a few GOP voters (college educated/evangelical), but he's going to lose a horrific amount of support in Rubio country (Fulton/Dekalb). Even though that's not his base, it's a lot of votes. Lots of moderate Republicans I know refuse to vote for Trump.

http://elections.sos.ga.gov/Elections/voterabsenteefile.doKind of hard to use since they split the counties, but...below are the vote in person numbers as well as D-R margin and vote count. I'll try and figure out how to make a script to combine them to be easily pivotable, but for now, just went into each file...

It does seem like Forsyth is punching above its weight relative to its low population.

One factor is probably that Forsyth makes it very easy to vote early. There are five early voting locations (compared to one in Gwinnett, which has four times the population) with extensive hours: 8am-6pm Mon-Fri this week and next week, then 7am-7pm on Saturday the 29th and the following Mon-Fri.

It's a disgrace what they're doing in Gwinnett, just 1 in Lawrenceville for the whole county (not surprisingly, most of the early voters are from Lawrenceville).

http://www.tomnash.eu/how-to-combine-multiple-csv-files-into-one-using-cmd/So I figured out how to combine the CSV files and did some analysis on it. Simply, ballot status A (accepted), comparing 2016 vote totals to 2012 final count. Obviously simple analysis that doesn't take into consideration of current voter registration.

Fulton is at 12.6K (now that I counted accepted mail), 3.2% of 2012Dekalb at 4%Cobb at 3.3%Gwinnett at 2.3% (disastrous 1 voting site)Forsyth is 6%Clayton's at 3.4%Muscogee is 4.1%Columbia is 4.8%Henry is 3.1%Hall is 4.5%Cherokee is 2.8%.

It's a disgrace what they're doing in Gwinnett, just 1 in Lawrenceville for the whole county (not surprisingly, most of the early voters are from Lawrenceville).

http://www.tomnash.eu/how-to-combine-multiple-csv-files-into-one-using-cmd/So I figured out how to combine the CSV files and did some analysis on it. Simply, ballot status A (accepted), comparing 2016 vote totals to 2012 final count. Obviously simple analysis that doesn't take into consideration of current voter registration.

Fulton is at 12.6K (now that I counted accepted mail), 3.2% of 2012Dekalb at 4%Cobb at 3.3%Gwinnett at 2.3% (disastrous 1 voting site)Forsyth is 6%Clayton's at 3.4%Muscogee is 4.1%Columbia is 4.8%Henry is 3.1%Hall is 4.5%Cherokee is 2.8%.

Also, I took each county's 2012 D/R margin, applied it to current county vote totals and came up with Trump 55% Clinton 44%. Hopefully as in person early voting ramps up this gap closes.

I think error will creep in because of the bolded part, although I confess I don't know what else you could do that's better. I expect the proportions to change significantly in some counties, partly due to demographic shifts and party due to Trump's unique (non-)appeal to certain groups. Forsyth was 80/18 for Romney, but I really doubt that Trump will hit 70 here.

Yes, Forsyth is very willing to make early voting easy, because, you know...all the 'right' people live there. It also has very high turnout and voter registration rates overall (the latter is the highest in the state as a share of CVAP, at over 90%), so it'd only make sense that its early voting numbers are huge. Early voting is so predominant now that the difference between early and election day groups usually isn't very meaningful in counties like Forsyth.

The way it usually goes is that the first few days of early voting appear to be as Republican (or even more so) than the state as a whole, but Democrats gradually increase their share of the vote day-by-day. By the end of early voting, the early vote demographics make things look better than they'll actually be once ED votes are counted.

I hope I didn't miss it already being posted, but the DCCC dropped an NV-04 internal in which Clinton leads Trump 47/38 (+9). Having a hard time getting the exact numbers on how NV-04 has previously voted.

I hope I didn't miss it already being posted, but the DCCC dropped an NV-04 internal in which Clinton leads Trump 47/38 (+9). Having a hard time getting the exact numbers on how NV-04 has previously voted.

I hope I didn't miss it already being posted, but the DCCC dropped an NV-04 internal in which Clinton leads Trump 47/38 (+9). Having a hard time getting the exact numbers on how NV-04 has previously voted.

I hope I didn't miss it already being posted, but the DCCC dropped an NV-04 internal in which Clinton leads Trump 47/38 (+9). Having a hard time getting the exact numbers on how NV-04 has previously voted.

I hope I didn't miss it already being posted, but the DCCC dropped an NV-04 internal in which Clinton leads Trump 47/38 (+9). Having a hard time getting the exact numbers on how NV-04 has previously voted.

I hope I didn't miss it already being posted, but the DCCC dropped an NV-04 internal in which Clinton leads Trump 47/38 (+9). Having a hard time getting the exact numbers on how NV-04 has previously voted.

Randy Evans, a Republican National committeeman from Georgia, said he’s skeptical that the debate was truly a flashpoint in the race for Clinton. He said early vote numbers indicate a higher proportion of votes from rural areas than four years ago, with lighter numbers in urban areas, suggesting a potential tilt toward Trump.

“I’m not gonna pretend, with this electorate, to have the crystal ball,” he said, citing internal polls he’s seen giving Trump a 4- to 6-point edge.

Not internal polling per se, but a good deep dive into the Florida operation by former Obama state organizer Steve Schale. He seems to think Florida is a lock for Clinton by 4-5 points, down ballot could be interesting:

Randy Evans, a Republican National committeeman from Georgia, said he’s skeptical that the debate was truly a flashpoint in the race for Clinton. He said early vote numbers indicate a higher proportion of votes from rural areas than four years ago, with lighter numbers in urban areas, suggesting a potential tilt toward Trump.

“I’m not gonna pretend, with this electorate, to have the crystal ball,” he said, citing internal polls he’s seen giving Trump a 4- to 6-point edge.

Not internal polling per se, but a good deep dive into the Florida operation by former Obama state organizer Steve Schale. He seems to think Florida is a lock for Clinton by 4-5 points, down ballot could be interesting:

Not internal polling per se, but a good deep dive into the Florida operation by former Obama state organizer Steve Schale. He seems to think Florida is a lock for Clinton by 4-5 points, down ballot could be interesting:

Not internal polling per se, but a good deep dive into the Florida operation by former Obama state organizer Steve Schale. He seems to think Florida is a lock for Clinton by 4-5 points, down ballot could be interesting:

Not internal polling per se, but a good deep dive into the Florida operation by former Obama state organizer Steve Schale. He seems to think Florida is a lock for Clinton by 4-5 points, down ballot could be interesting:

Not internal polling per se, but a good deep dive into the Florida operation by former Obama state organizer Steve Schale. He seems to think Florida is a lock for Clinton by 4-5 points, down ballot could be interesting:

Not internal polling per se, but a good deep dive into the Florida operation by former Obama state organizer Steve Schale. He seems to think Florida is a lock for Clinton by 4-5 points, down ballot could be interesting:

I think I figured out why these internals are so pro-Democratic, relative to the other polls. Basically, the Democrats are operating normally, showing polls favorable to them. But, elite Republicans almost want a disaster to prove how bad Trump is, so they are leaking their worst internals.

I think I figured out why these internals are so pro-Democratic, relative to the other polls. Basically, the Democrats are operating normally, showing polls favorable to them. But, elite Republicans almost want a disaster to prove how bad Trump is, so they are leaking their worst internals.

I think they are trying to get the warning out that things are collapsing. Look at past results, lots of time the dam doesn't break out until the last couple weeks.

I think I figured out why these internals are so pro-Democratic, relative to the other polls. Basically, the Democrats are operating normally, showing polls favorable to them. But, elite Republicans almost want a disaster to prove how bad Trump is, so they are leaking their worst internals.

From what I understand about the psychology of polling, you want your party members to think things are close but not doomed. Too large a deficit and people could get demoralized.

I think I figured out why these internals are so pro-Democratic, relative to the other polls. Basically, the Democrats are operating normally, showing polls favorable to them. But, elite Republicans almost want a disaster to prove how bad Trump is, so they are leaking their worst internals.

They also want to retain the Senate and the House. Leaking these type of numbers don't help that cause.

I think I figured out why these internals are so pro-Democratic, relative to the other polls. Basically, the Democrats are operating normally, showing polls favorable to them. But, elite Republicans almost want a disaster to prove how bad Trump is, so they are leaking their worst internals.

They also want to retain the Senate and the House. Leaking these type of numbers don't help that cause.

Maybe not. It might be a subtle way of distancing themselves from Trump without explicitly disavowing him, which would cause problems with his base. This sends the message that Trump is going to lose, with the implicit point that GOP voters need to stick with their down-ballot candidates to act as a check on President Clinton.

I think I figured out why these internals are so pro-Democratic, relative to the other polls. Basically, the Democrats are operating normally, showing polls favorable to them. But, elite Republicans almost want a disaster to prove how bad Trump is, so they are leaking their worst internals.

They also want to retain the Senate and the House. Leaking these type of numbers don't help that cause.

Maybe not. It might be a subtle way of distancing themselves from Trump without explicitly disavowing him, which would cause problems with his base. This sends the message that Trump is going to lose, with the implicit point that GOP voters need to stick with their down-ballot candidates to act as a check on President Clinton.

I would agree with this if the numbers they were providing weren't so dire. I mean they are saying that Trump is down double digits in NH and PA, it almost impossible for Ayotte and Toomey to overcome that.

Steve Schale ‏@steveschale 6m6 minutes ago Tallahassee, FLSteve Schale Retweeted John HarwoodI've seen some HRC/DJT numbers in Florida bellwether down ballot districts that are shocking. Margins that are hard to get head around.

Steve Schale ‏@steveschale 6m6 minutes ago Tallahassee, FLSteve Schale Retweeted John HarwoodI've seen some HRC/DJT numbers in Florida bellwether down ballot districts that are shocking. Margins that are hard to get head around.

Another tweet in response to Murphy's chances to win:

Quote

Steve Schale‏@steveschale@trowaman @DemFromCT @JohnJHarwood if he can find some cash, he can win. DSCC pulling out is mindnumbing

Steve Schale ‏@steveschale 6m6 minutes ago Tallahassee, FLSteve Schale Retweeted John HarwoodI've seen some HRC/DJT numbers in Florida bellwether down ballot districts that are shocking. Margins that are hard to get head around.

You'd think at least one Florida poll would've captured this if it was true. Clinton up 4 is definitely great for a state like Florida, but from the hyperbolic tone of that tweet you'd think it meant she was up double digits there or something. Unless said swing districts are being offset in safe districts.

Steve Schale ‏@steveschale 6m6 minutes ago Tallahassee, FLSteve Schale Retweeted John HarwoodI've seen some HRC/DJT numbers in Florida bellwether down ballot districts that are shocking. Margins that are hard to get head around.

You'd think at least one Florida poll would've captured this if it was true. Clinton up 4 is definitely great for a state like Florida, but from the hyperbolic tone of that tweet you'd think it meant she was up double digits in the state or something. Unless said swing districts are being offset in safe districts.

My guess is that Trump's overperforming in the panhandle? Maybe the swing map is something like the 2014 gubernatorial one.

But it was not until after a video surfaced Oct. 7 showing Trump bragging in a 2005 “Access Hollywood” interview about sexually assaulting women that Clinton’s advisers decided to make late investments.

Private polls reviewed by Clinton strategists showed Democratic Senate and gubernatorial candidates rising in Indiana and Missouri. The Clinton team concluded that in Missouri, for instance, a well-funded ground game to turn out African Americans could be the deciding factor.

Hillary Clinton is pouring $1 million into Indiana and Missouri in the campaign’s final weeks — not because the Democratic presidential nominee thinks she can carry those reliably Republican states, but because she believes that, with an extra push, Democrats can win the Senate and governors’ races there.

It seems like they see the Senate/governor's race have a winnable race, but need extra push in the cities... but they don't expect/plan to win the whole state.

I think the DSCC wants to defeat Rubio, but wants to get to 50 seats even more, and they see IN, MO and NC as easer paths (outside of the conventional IL/WI/PA/NH). They probably think defeating Rubio would be really expensive, and it would be, but they're downplaying his vulnerability. Oh well.

If anything wins the day for Murphy, it'll be Clinton's ground game (and Trump's lack of one), but I think the Clinton campaign really doesn't care about getting Clinton/Rubio voters to the polls.

Randy Evans, a Republican National committeeman from Georgia, said he’s skeptical that the debate was truly a flashpoint in the race for Clinton. He said early vote numbers indicate a higher proportion of votes from rural areas than four years ago, with lighter numbers in urban areas, suggesting a potential tilt toward Trump.

“I’m not gonna pretend, with this electorate, to have the crystal ball,” he said, citing internal polls he’s seen giving Trump a 4- to 6-point edge.

Basically confirming the recent Georgia polls we've seen.

Yea, there is a reason Dems arent going into Georgia like Arizona

It looks like North GA is voting early a lot. Excess of retired cabin retirees?

If anything wins the day for Murphy, it'll be Clinton's ground game (and Trump's lack of one), but I think the Clinton campaign really doesn't care about getting Clinton/Rubio voters to the polls.

I was watching one of the MSNBC shows this past week and that seems to be the viewpoint from the national party. Basically. FL-Sen will fall if Hillary wins by enough and Rubio wins if it's closer. In other words, there's not much that can be done in terms of the air game. A lot is really dependent on the ground game. If Hillary can win Florida by about 5%, her superior ground game could be enough to take him out, but there really is no margin for error. Things need to go very right for Murphy to to win.

Trump’s team... built a model, the “Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory,” to weight and rank the states that the data team believes are most critical to amassing the 270 electoral votes Trump needs to win the White House. On Oct. 18 they rank as follows:

Geoff Garin says he was in the field last night polling and saw no negative impact against Clinton from Comeygate

https://twitter.com/geoffgarin/status/792376273460924416

Ten days left, support for both candidates is mostly locked in, Clinton is dominating the early vote, and Trump hasn't closed the gap with Women, Hispanics, Blacks, Millennials, etc. to the point he needs to win. Republicans want and need Comeygate to bring Hillary down, but it seems to be wishful thinking at this point considering she had a consistent lead during the original email investigation and the narrative has changed from "case re-opened" to "Comey screwed up." The race is tightening, but do Trump sheep honestly think a b.s. news story is going to peel away millions of supporters from Clinton considering they already distrust her?

Geoff Garin says he was in the field last night polling and saw no negative impact against Clinton from Comeygate

https://twitter.com/geoffgarin/status/792376273460924416

It doesn't surprise me someone who had Bruce Braley ahead in the final week wouldn't see movement.

You seem to girding your loins for some kind of crash ... which I just don't think is going to happen.

We've had zero numbers in any way, other than positive early voting numbers like usual. The white knuckles around here have been ridiculous.

Yawn.... this seems like yet another media event for a few days based upon a lack of real news to talk about.

There aren't very many undecided voters out there anymore, and most Americans are tired about hearing yet another BS story, about Clinton's emails and server.

The only people that really care about it are a small handful of Trump supporters, desperately grasping for any straw in reach to suck down the last sip of their Tequila Sunrise, before they need to order a Tequila Sunset in the closing hours at 2 AM. (Made this a few times before, and its actually a pretty good drink)

Geoff Garin says he was in the field last night polling and saw no negative impact against Clinton from Comeygate

https://twitter.com/geoffgarin/status/792376273460924416

It doesn't surprise me someone who had Bruce Braley ahead in the final week wouldn't see movement.

You seem to girding your loins for some kind of crash ... which I just don't think is going to happen.

I don't know if I'd use the word "crash", but I do expect her to take a significant hit in the averages once the next batch of post email polls are dropped. We'll see soon enough. Hopefully you're right and I'm not.

Republican polling shows the party's chances improving in Nebraska's 2nd District, one of the GOP's three top opportunities to knock off a Democratic incumbent this year.

Retired Brig. Gen. Don Bacon led incumbent Democratic Rep. Brad Ashford 48 to 44 percent among registered voters in a North Star Opinion Research poll, shared first with Roll Call. The poll was conducted Oct. 22-24 for the Congressional Leadership Fund, the super PAC tied to House GOP leadership. The fund has invested $950,000 on TV and digital in the Omaha-based district.

the F.B.I. director’s letter about the emails has not yet produced a major shift in private polling, according to Republican and Democratic strategists with access to confidential data, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Mrs. Clinton’s lead over Mr. Trump appears to have contracted modestly, but not enough to threaten her advantage over all or to make the electoral math less forbidding for Mr. Trump, Republicans and Democrats said.

Republicans privy to private polling data said surveys they had seen since the news from the F.B.I. on Friday still showed Mrs. Clinton leading in North Carolina

That's very good to hear, indeed, and gives more credence to what was already the sense: the unaffiliateds are breaking hard for HRC and that's where the poll adv is. Not close to a sure thing, but a little extra evidence in that direction.

If the polls coming out now and the next few days (which were taken at the peak of the Clinton-aspect of this) aren't showing a change, is it safe to say that barring any new developments there won't be any change from it?

The Trump Tape was definitely more severe in its polling impact, with Monmouth showing Trump up Indiana 1 day, then down double digits the next, and Marquette having Trump up, then down...

It probably will take a week to understand the impact.

And the FBI story is too confusing for most people to digest, and the campaign is effectively countering back, and even has the support of hardline Republicans. Plus, tons of Trump oppo dumping tonight.

The Trump Tape was definitely more severe in its polling impact, with Monmouth showing Trump up Indiana 1 day, then down double digits the next, and Marquette having Trump up, then down...

It probably will take a week to understand the impact.

And the FBI story is too confusing for most people to digest, and the campaign is effectively countering back, and even has the support of hardline Republicans. Plus, tons of Trump oppo dumping tonight.

Not when sex is involved. That seems to make it easier for the American public to pay attention to it. Pervert Anthony Weiner makes this story juicier than it would normally be.

The Trump Tape was definitely more severe in its polling impact, with Monmouth showing Trump up Indiana 1 day, then down double digits the next, and Marquette having Trump up, then down...

It probably will take a week to understand the impact.

And the FBI story is too confusing for most people to digest, and the campaign is effectively countering back, and even has the support of hardline Republicans. Plus, tons of Trump oppo dumping tonight.

Not when sex is involved. That seems to make it easier for the American public to pay attention to it. Pervert Anthony Weiner makes this story juicier than it would normally be.

Pervert who????

Another email story about the same old, same old, what???

It's the same deal with the Trump groppergate.... big news initially and then five other women came forward and it barely drops on the radar of the American public.

Reality, is that this story, nor the DNC hack stories, doesn't really move the needle.

60+% of Americans see Trump as basically a sexist pig, racially insensitive, and lacking the fundamental judgement, temperament, and experience to run the highest office in the Nation, particularly on foreign policy, and 60% of Americans don't see Clinton as honest and trustworthy, and at worst view her more as a typical "politician" that will say one thing to Wall Street and another to Main Street to get elected.

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but the only people really obsessed with sex are Republicans, and the vast majority of evangelicals decided to forgive Trump of his sins solely because he has an (R) after his last name on the ballot.

top GOP pollster: "Trump recovering, not enough to dig out of hole. superior HRC data/digital/GOTV too much to overcome. GOP holds Senate."

https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/793470712287748097

Is it not the same person that "a former FBI agent says anonymously"?.. ::)

I mean why the hell would they spread bad news to depress their own pubs? If Trump will lose in landslide, GOP will lose senate as well.

Sorry, but it doesn't make any sense, does it? ???

where do you see landslide in this comment. They think the firewall states will all fall short, but they still think they can win senate races in MO, NC, IN, NV which would hold Senate. Not really that complicated.

Title: Re: Internal poll megathread
Post by: Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More on November 01, 2016, 10:28:42 am

top GOP pollster: "Trump recovering, not enough to dig out of hole. superior HRC data/digital/GOTV too much to overcome. GOP holds Senate."

https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/793470712287748097

Is it not the same person that "a former FBI agent says anonymously"?.. ::)

I mean why the hell would they spread bad news to depress their own pubs? If Trump will lose in landslide, GOP will lose senate as well.

Sorry, but it doesn't make any sense, does it? ???

where do you see landslide in this comment. They think the firewall states will all fall short, but they still think they can win senate races in MO, NC, IN, NV which would hold Senate. Not really that complicated.

If they win all their firewall races and lose all their non-firewall races (except Bayh), that gives them 50.

where do you see landslide in this comment. They think the firewall states will all fall short, but they still think they can win senate races in MO, NC, IN, NV which would hold Senate. Not really that complicated.

I ment that stating this fact might depress voters which may lead to landslide. What would happen, do you think, if "Democrat top pollster" would say the same? Would it not derpess D-voters?

top GOP pollster: "Trump recovering, not enough to dig out of hole. superior HRC data/digital/GOTV too much to overcome. GOP holds Senate."

https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/793470712287748097

This top GOP pollster might be Tony Fabrizio, who linked to Harwood's tweet and said:

Tony Fabrizio‏@TonyFabrizioGOP Tony Fabrizio Retweeted John HarwoodWhat if the turnout models are wrong and turnout looks more like 2014 than it does 2012?

Then maybe Trump wins NC, Nevada and Florida by 3, Colorado, Michigan, and Wisconsin by 1.5-2.0. Loses Virginia and New Hampshire by 1. Wins Ohio and Iowa by 8-10. It turns out to be a very 2004ish election. May not be a significant change in Congress.

where do you see landslide in this comment. They think the firewall states will all fall short, but they still think they can win senate races in MO, NC, IN, NV which would hold Senate. Not really that complicated.

I ment that stating this fact might depress voters which may lead to landslide. What would happen, do you think, if "Democrat top pollster" would say the same? Would it not derpess D-voters?

or maybe they didn't mean for it to be public. I gotta say not many undecided voters are reading John Harwood's twitter.

I'm reporting possible leaks, nothing more. It passes the logic test and Harwood's a good journo. You and everyone else can do what you want with it.

...A total hack that has been proven to be a mouthpiece of HRC campaign as if we needed proof.

Well, you're (to say the least) quite an extreme partisan, so I'm not terribly worried about your opinion when I'm seeking to find the current reality of the race. Like I said, here's the message, it jibes more or less with what we've actually seen in the numbers so far (not saying anything of what's to come). Take it or leave it.

I'm reporting possible leaks, nothing more. It passes the logic test and Harwood's a good journo. You and everyone else can do what you want with it.

...A total hack that has been proven to be a mouthpiece of HRC campaign as if we needed proof.

Well, you're (to say the least) quite an extreme partisan, so I'm not terribly worried about your opinion when I'm seeking to find the current reality of the race. Like I said, here's the message, it jibes more or less with what we've actually seen in the numbers so far (not saying anything of what's to come). Take it or leave it.

1) I'm not a partisan in any real definition of the word but whatever. The use of the word extreme is wrong, but no one cares. 2) It isn't my opinion, it is proven by primary source documents.

But anyways, I was talking about their message. They likely won't publish those polls, why my interpretation is that their "Clinton +3-5" are D-friendly and means sort of: Clinton is at best +3-5 :PNo data, no responsibility.

But anyways, I was talking about their message. They likely won't publish those polls, why my interpretation is that their "Clinton +3-5" are D-friendly and means sort of: Clinton is at best +3-5 :P

We'll see soon.

Or they won't publish polls because they are not doing any public polls for the last two weeks. All private.

Right, but in many cases if the poll is favorable to the Democrat (PPP's client, generally), they'll release the poll. Given that we haven't seen any PPP polls in something like a week, my guess is the battleground trends aren't looking particularly favorable for Clinton, even if she remains ahead in them.

But anyways, I was talking about their message. They likely won't publish those polls, why my interpretation is that their "Clinton +3-5" are D-friendly and means sort of: Clinton is at best +3-5 :P

We'll see soon.

Or they won't publish polls because they are not doing any public polls for the last two weeks. All private.

Right, but in many cases if the poll is favorable to the Democrat (PPP's client, generally), they'll release the poll. Given that we haven't seen any PPP polls in something like a week, my guess is the battleground trends aren't looking particularly favorable for Clinton, even if she remains ahead in them.

But anyways, I was talking about their message. They likely won't publish those polls, why my interpretation is that their "Clinton +3-5" are D-friendly and means sort of: Clinton is at best +3-5 :P

We'll see soon.

Or they won't publish polls because they are not doing any public polls for the last two weeks. All private.

Right, but in many cases if the poll is favorable to the Democrat (PPP's client, generally), they'll release the poll. Given that we haven't seen any PPP polls in something like a week, my guess is the battleground trends aren't looking particularly favorable for Clinton, even if she remains ahead in them.

No, PPP's client will release the poll. PPP has no say if their private polls are released.

But anyways, I was talking about their message. They likely won't publish those polls, why my interpretation is that their "Clinton +3-5" are D-friendly and means sort of: Clinton is at best +3-5 :P

We'll see soon.

Or they won't publish polls because they are not doing any public polls for the last two weeks. All private.

Right, but in many cases if the poll is favorable to the Democrat (PPP's client, generally), they'll release the poll. Given that we haven't seen any PPP polls in something like a week, my guess is the battleground trends aren't looking particularly favorable for Clinton, even if she remains ahead in them.

No, PPP's client will release the poll. PPP has no say if their private polls are released.

By "they'll release the poll", I meant "PPP's client will release the poll". You're correct.

Trump internal has Clinton up 49-38 in New York, after doing a push question.

"Before being asked who their favored candidate was, the pollster asked voters: “All things being equal, would you be more likely to vote for a candidate for president that will continue many of President Obama’s policies for the next four years or change and take the country in a new and different direction?”

Trump internal has Clinton up 49-38 in New York, after doing a push question.

"Before being asked who their favored candidate was, the pollster asked voters: “All things being equal, would you be more likely to vote for a candidate for president that will continue many of President Obama’s policies for the next four years or change and take the country in a new and different direction?”

NH's going to be tough. Hillary is around 46-47% there and you know white men are going to swing hard against her. There's no minority base there. Hopefully her performance among NH white women is more similar to Obama 2008 than Obama 2012, or else Trump could squeak by.

Private polling the entire cycle has been steady with a mid single digit lead nationally for Clinton. GOP internals are notoriously horrible in presidential years and I would be skeptical of any reports of states like Pennsylvania and New Hampshire being close.

NH's going to be tough. Hillary is around 46-47% there and you know white men are going to swing hard against her. There's no minority base there. Hopefully her performance among NH white women is more similar to Obama 2008 than Obama 2012, or else Trump could squeak by.

He was literaly going to sit from his "magic wall" and he said looking at the phone something like "things change any minute, we have a poll showing a tie in Colorado". So i thought it was like brend new poll. Who knows what he meant.

"a panel of activists, strategists and operatives in 11 swing states, seven of which are seeing significant early- and absentee-voting operations. In those seven states where large numbers of voters are expected to cast their ballots before Election Day — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin — more than three-quarters of Democrats think their party has done a better job turning out key voters thus far.

Democratic insiders are most confident in Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin. They express more uncertainty in Florida and Iowa.

"Republicans, meanwhile, were split across these early voting states. Overall, 40 percent said the GOP was doing the better job, compared with 31 percent who said Democrats were overperforming. Another 29 percent said neither party had a discernible advantage."

"(The question wasn’t posed to insiders in Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia — states that don't offer early voting and have more restrictive absentee ballot requirements.)"

"a panel of activists, strategists and operatives in 11 swing states, seven of which are seeing significant early- and absentee-voting operations. In those seven states where large numbers of voters are expected to cast their ballots before Election Day — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin — more than three-quarters of Democrats think their party has done a better job turning out key voters thus far.

Democratic insiders are most confident in Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin. They express more uncertainty in Florida and Iowa.

"Republicans, meanwhile, were split across these early voting states. Overall, 40 percent said the GOP was doing the better job, compared with 31 percent who said Democrats were overperforming. Another 29 percent said neither party had a discernible advantage."

"(The question wasn’t posed to insiders in Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia — states that don't offer early voting and have more restrictive absentee ballot requirements.)"

.@jeffzeleny reports on @CNN Obama was itching to make 1 final trip to Iowa, which started it all, but was told it was gone. So: Ann Arbor Michigan

One more evidence that superduper magic internals & ground-game doesn't differ much from public polling, no/si?

on the contrary....IA is the opposite if OH.....full republican support for trump since day1 and its demography was pro-populism to begin with....the main reason it voted straight D since years was republican anti-farmer-policy during reagan, i was told.

.@jeffzeleny reports on @CNN Obama was itching to make 1 final trip to Iowa, which started it all, but was told it was gone. So: Ann Arbor Michigan

Disappointing, but I guess better to lock down the blue wall than make a last ditch effort to keep Iowa in.

F-ck Iowa. I'm sick of them and their god-damned corn subsidies that keep HFCS in our food supply. The DNC should nuke the Iowa Caucus ASAP and give it to a more appropriate state. I don't see any adverse reason why Nevada shouldn't be the first in the nation caucus (if we're going to even keep caucuses at all).

I don't agree with Donald Trump on almost anything, but I share his viewpoint: "How stupid are the people of Iowa?"

.@jeffzeleny reports on @CNN Obama was itching to make 1 final trip to Iowa, which started it all, but was told it was gone. So: Ann Arbor Michigan

One more evidence that superduper magic internals & ground-game doesn't differ much from public polling, no/si?

on the contrary....IA is the opposite if OH.....full republican support for trump since day1 and its demography was pro-populism to begin with....the main reason it voted straight D since years was republican anti-farmer-policy during reagan, i was told.

And? You think it is coincidence that Obama was cancelled day after Selzer showed Trump+7?

.@jeffzeleny reports on @CNN Obama was itching to make 1 final trip to Iowa, which started it all, but was told it was gone. So: Ann Arbor Michigan

One more evidence that superduper magic internals & ground-game doesn't differ much from public polling, no/si?

on the contrary....IA is the opposite if OH.....full republican support for trump since day1 and its demography was pro-populism to begin with....the main reason it voted straight D since years was republican anti-farmer-policy during reagan, i was told.

And? You think it is coincidence that Obama was cancelled day after Selzer showed Trump+7?

Yes. I remember Obama in 2008 campaigning at Indianapolis before going to Chicago for his election night party.

Maybe you make one stop, but not five. Check out some of the Youtube clips from the 1988 election and you'll see Trump is throwing spaghetti at the wall in a similar way

I agree with you. I don't get what kind of campaign stops will be these, 5 states in a few hours with a lot of time wasted in travel, I doubt he will be able to stay more than a few minutes at every stop. Seems like a waste of money and energy.

If Hillary wins and gets a majority in the Senate, President Obama should immediately withdraw his nomination to allow for a substantially more liberal Justice.

Absolutely, 100%. After the sh*t the Republicans pulled here in the hopes that Democrats wouldn't hold the White House, this would be a perfectly reasonable response. I think Obama would be too generous to the Republicans to actually do this, though.

John Heilmann on WADR says that the Clinton team says their internals "bottomed out" last Wednesday following the Comey letter with the race getting "tight" and since then things have improved with some "breathing room"

John Heilmann on WADR says that the Clinton team says their internals "bottomed out" last Wednesday following the Comey letter with the race getting "tight" and since then things have improved with some "breathing room"

John Heilmann on WADR says that the Clinton team says their internals "bottomed out" last Wednesday following the Comey letter with the race getting "tight" and since then things have improved with some "breathing room"

My guess is they are up 5 in their internals and the breathing room reference is the path to 270 (either PA or MI) got within a couple of points but is now likely Dem again

VA: Clinton +5 (4-way), Clinton +6 H2HBelieves Clinton will win NH and NV by at least 3Clinton +2.5% in FLClinton +4 in PAClinton +5 in COAgrees with the Upshot poll of NCOhio is the closest state, within a point either way

John Heilmann on WADR says that the Clinton team says their internals "bottomed out" last Wednesday following the Comey letter with the race getting "tight" and since then things have improved with some "breathing room"

"I don’t want to be selfish,” Rendell told CNN. “But I’m still a little nervous, so I have asked Obama to come back. We understand he’s got demands from 20 different states, but we’d like to see him here.”

This was a week before the 2008 election. As we all know, Obama won by 11 points.

John Heilmann on WADR says that the Clinton team says their internals "bottomed out" last Wednesday following the Comey letter with the race getting "tight" and since then things have improved with some "breathing room"

b-b-ut I thought the Comey letter had no effect!

Tom Jensen of PPP and some other Democratic pollsters on twitter said that the Comey letter had no significant impact on their numbers.

If you do a Rule of Four, it will probably be like Clinton 48, Trump 46 and basically New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and maybe Colorado by the skin of her teeth while eventually losing Florida and North Carolina between 1 and 2.

If you do a Rule of Four, it will probably be like Clinton 48, Trump 46 and basically New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and maybe Colorado by the skin of her teeth while eventually losing Florida and North Carolina between 1 and 2.